I wonder how difficult it would be to integrate a Mac OSX "Expose'" feature on Morphos? Its one of my favorite things with MacOS..

Me too. Expose is great. It helps a lot and I think it should be implemented into MorphOS. Is there any chance of seeing it under MorphOS?

Have you noticed right mouse button menu over window depth gadget? I guess that will basically do the same... brings the wanted window front. Or if you want to hide all windows, there's option for it in IControl.

Well... this generally shouldn't be that hard with enhanced display. The only problems are: a) someone has to do it, b) it either cannot work like the Apple Expose, or cannot be included in MorphOS (due to patent issues in the USA).

Feel like designing something that doesn't fall under Apple's patents ?

It's rather old video, I'm sure there are newer versions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpTT6sj6Xmo

Hmm, hope they didn't get sued for this ;)

Check this as well, it's ever older thread than the video.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=30434
and here:
http://linuxhelp.blogspot.com/2005/12/kompose-macos-expose-on-linux.html#axzz0diQtaAqU

@jacadcaps
So, judging from what you say it's doable. Maybe some day... ;) I look forward to it.

Does the Linux Compiz expose-like feature (scale plugin) infringe some copyrights ?

[ Edited by mahen on 2010/1/26 12:20 ]

To be honest I've no idea, but it's absolutely worth checking :D

Quote:

there is no such thing as a copyright on a "concept" or an "idea". Unless you go and steal the same code used in MacOS X, you are free to use any idea whatsoever. Now software *patents* -which this feature would probably fall under- could affect the implementation, *if* you live in a country that supports software patents (like the USA). EU currently does not approve software patents -but there is some strong lobbying so that it will eventually, check http://petition.stopsoftwarepatents.eu/. This means that since the MorphOS team does reside in the EU -afaik- it is free to do what it pleases and implement an Expose-like effect -even with the exact same functionality as in MacOS X.

PS. Fwiw, I'm using it with kde4 right now and I couldn't care less about Apple's patents.

Hmm, I didn't know about this feature of Mac OS X or Compiz.

As stated by jPV, the right mouse button over a window depth gadget just gives the same kind of feature (ok, less candy-eyes, but who cares?). And you even have the same with screens over the screen depth gadget.

AFAIK, this feature came up first on Amiga with the old DepthMenu commodities, ages ago.


[ Edited by Jeckel on 2010/1/26 19:37 ]

Feanor
I think Jacek is quite familiar with copyright laws with software as well as GPL concepts, etc. If he's concerned with it being in the OS there is a reason. That being said, his comments were encouraging considering it doesnt seem that hard to implement. But pega1, bigfoot, kiero, etc are quite busy so who to do it?

> I think Jacek is quite familiar with copyright laws with software

Jacek wrote about patents, not copyrights. Mahen mixed that up (and now so did you). That was the whole point of feanor's post.

How about:
1. RMB on window depth gadget, new option=hide all other windows
2. lamiga-tab = cycle though windows, bringing each to the front in turn (do not cycle iconified windows)

Say, that's a nice option in Mac, still making Windows useless so far (as long as you ve got a mighty mouse)

I know it must be patented but just take a look at most recent Kubuntu - it has the feature built in!
So - Linux can violate anything, anyone else must not, right?

Quote:

Again, there is no violation, depending on where you live. With a little google search I found this link: http://www.maclife.com/article/news/apple_wins_11_new_design_patents

According to the article:

Quote:

So, if you're in the USA, yes, Apple can sue you, if you're in the EU or elsewhere, these patents have absolutely NO meaning outside the US. Afaik, there is NO legal standing of cross-border *software* patents.

@ feanor

Quote:

You can be sued *in the US* even if your company is located in the EU. Whether the litigating party will be able to (easily) collect any awarded damages is of course an entirely different story. That said, a judge could order that the sale of MorphOS to US citizens is prohibited and fine a penalty for every offence. In any case, there is no legal immunity for EU-based companies per se.

With regard to free open source operating systems, most companies will not bother to go to court as it will likely result in just bad press but no effective means of prohibiting the software from being published due to the open source distribution model. However, MorphOS is still primarily a closed source operating system and sold for a fee.

Naturally, there are no guarantuees that Apple would or would not sue a small software developer but it would be wrong to state or imply that there is no legal risk at all.

Quote:

That's a worst case scenario yes. Which I understand is not acceptable by the MorphOS team, but it's still the worst that can happen -until Software patents arrive to the EU that is

Quote:

Yes, open source and patents have a very special relationship, which is one more reason to adopt it. So far open source seems to win, at least for now. :)

Quote:

Agreed on that.

Quote:

I think you totally mistake IP issues here.

Software patents and patenting software is not the same thing. First means some patents, covered internationally (mostly, unless some party wants to save on the procedure and patents something locally only), regarding some features to be found in some specific software entity. Software patent concern some functional part of a software. The latter one is a legal way of protection of IP rights against all software solutions, depending on a legal system (ruling). In this very case - right. U.S. protects their software using patents (so called "patenting the algorithms"), whilst the EU chose the way of protecting software via copyright instruments (then software is protected similarirly as a movie or a music in EU). Actually it was ruled by EU Parliament in June 2009, thanks to its President, Jerzy Buzek from Poland.

So tu summarize - openoffice isn't much legal in the us since MS Office is patented per se and one cannot "create similar software, having basically all the same features". So in the US, oo violates MS Office. But not in EU while one can make say EU Office which looks and acts the same as MS Office; program's behaviour and looks aren't protected. You cannot make/sell/distribute pirate copies of MS Office though.

So if you patent "a feature" (here: Expose), this ruling applies worldwide IMAO. But I'm getting more and more confused on it, the more I study it (I study PG IP now).

Ignoring all that babble bout patents and copyrights...

I see absolutly no reason why this couldn't be done in a rather simple (3rd-party) commodity.

1. Wait for hotbutton, basic Commodity-functionality
2. Scan Intuition for all Windows (scanning only for windows belonging to a certain app might be a bit tricky), trivial
3. Generate a layout that allows to show all windows while retaining maximal size, needs a bit of thinking
4. Open a borderless window in front of everything else (use the screens backdrop for good measure), again trivial
5. Blit and scale the windows into our previes win, not too hard
6. Wait for user input, we can do that ...
7. Check which window-image was clicked, it's getting easy
8 Close the preview win
9. Issue an WindowToFront() on that window.

If I wasn't so damn lazy

@ DiskDoctor

Quote:

Some would argue that the US has stricter copyright laws than those commonly found in the European Union. Overall, there is barely a difference in terms of how software is protected by copyrights laws in the US and in EU. In the US, there is just an additional legal protection, i.e. software patents. However, this particular protection is considered as extremely anti-competitive by a number of people.


Quote:

If somebody applies for a *US* patent on software, then this patent will only apply to the US region (which includes foreign products sold in this market, such as MorphOS). Usually, if you would like your invention to be protected elsewhere, you have to pay extra.

Not all patents apply world-wide by default.

> Naturally, there are no guarantuees that Apple would or would not sue a small
> software developer

I know a case that has nothing to do with patents but with trademarks:

http://keyj.emphy.de/apple-lawsuit/

The programs in question went by the names of "KeyJnote" and "reTune". "KeyJ" is the developer's handle since year dot, hence the choice of the original name.
From this incident I conclude that Apple wouldn't refrain from suing small or even single developers over IP matters.

@ Andreas

Quote:

Actually, a client of mine had a product that included the term "pod" in its name. Apple contacted them about it soon after it was announced.

I would like to point out that there is a major difference between the legal protection offered by trademarks and by patents, though. If you tolerate that other parties use your trademarks, you can in fact lose your trademark protection entirely. The same does not apply to patents. If you know about a company that violates one of your patents, you will not lose your patent protection if you choose to not do anything about it.

> openoffice isn't much legal in the us since MS Office is patented per se and one
> cannot "create similar software, having basically all the same features". So in the
> US, oo violates MS Office.

So you say that SUN's commercial product StarOffice, which is heavily based on OpenOffice, is illegal in the US?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarOffice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarOffice#Pricing_and_licensing

Quote:

Perhaps, I'm not an expert, and by all means I accept corrections, but tbh, you seem equally confused on this. Allow me to explain:

Quote:

First, there is no such thing as an *international* *software* patent. Let's agree on that. Each applicant has to do it as many times as there are countries -or country coalitions like the EU, which are covered by a single Patent Office. So in essence, a patent in the US -and again we're talking about software patents here, not eg. a patent on LCD technology, which is totally different- is not applicable to the EU, unless the company in question reapplies the patent in the EU Patent Office. What the EU commision wanted to do was to have some kind of agreement between the US and EU patent office so that most/all US software patents are directly valid in the EU as well. I am not an expert but I discussed about this with people who are, but perhaps I still have gotten it wrong.

Quote:

What you say seems to agree with what I said earlier. Algorithms and methodologies used in software is what compose a software patent, which is only possible in the US right now. As it is, the EU forbids this kind of patenting software -software copyright which you mentioned is an entirely different thing to a software patent.

Quote:

You mentioned OpenOffice. You forget that between large companies there is usually a cross-licensing of patents, so in effect Sun -owners of OpenOffice IP- and MS have most certainly such a deal. It's not *illegal* to distribute, it's just that there is a need for a license agreement. Anyway, the basics of a word processor are hardly an MS patent, they were not the first in the market, after all.

Quote:

Definitely NOT. The patent of a feature applies *only* to the area of juristiction of the Patent Office -in this case the US Patent Office. For hardware patents there are probably international agreements -and even then enforcement is difficult, eg. see China-, but software patents are so far a US-only thing.

@feanor

OK I admit it, the whole case is really confused, IP worldwide calls for clarification because it's too messed up.

I only want to add that saying "patents", "trademarks" has only sense if you talk worldwide. There are treaties like TRIPS or TRIPOS, forced by the US, that basically forward protection to any other country to the maximum allowed extent.

So there's no much point in saying that something is "US patented" in the software world. It's better than nothing but no much more. All I have said, I tried to speak against worldwide protection issues.

Alas, I will not discuss it anymore, at least until I have the patants exam passed (so in three weeks approximately ).

> saying "patents", "trademarks" has only sense if you talk worldwide.

...thus rendering any patents or trademarks useless in your opinion just by hinting at the example feanor gave: China. Last time I looked China was part of this world ;-)